"It was like I was a fake person, like I didn't really exist. I was just here," she said of living without a heart.
That is such bullshit.
Or perhaps the result of scientists experimenting with animating corpses without vital organs. If this isn't the harbinger of a zombie hoard coammanded by a mad scientist, I don't know what is.
"It was like I was a fake person, like I didn't really exist. I was just here," she said of living without a heart.
That is such bullshit.
Or perhaps the result of scientists experimenting with animating corpses without vital organs. If this isn't the harbinger of a zombie hoard coammanded by a mad scientist, I don't know what is.
Well, if this is the case we got off easy. One EMP and voila!
But this raises an interesting question: where do we draw the line between human and not human? With prosthetics and such becoming more and more common, and it is a real possibility that disabled/injured people could become more mechanical than biological, is there a point where they are no longer human?
But this raises an interesting question: where do we draw the line between human and not human? With prosthetic and such becoming more and more common, and it is a real possibility that disabled/injured people could become more mechanical than biological, is there a point where they are no longer human?
A very interesting question. You could say that if the majority of one's body was made mechanical then you would cease to be human, but I think it should be more a matter of function. If we give someone a robotic body that moves on all four legs, eats coal, and shits diamonds, then that person is completely different from a human from a functional standpoint. If we give everything on the inside artificial replacements and the person still looks, acts, and functions exactly the same as a human, it would be a human for all intents and purposes. The only reasons to define the second person differently would be rather useless, and probably lead to a lot of nasty discrimination.
(Just note that I'm not involving a scientific or medical definition of what is human here, because I couldn't speak to that with any sort of authority. This is a purely cultural/philosophical musing.)
Someone is declared dead at brain death. In the eyes of the law they are no longer human. As long as you have a (minimally) functional brain you are legally human.
If you replaced every single part, one piece at a time, would they still be thesamehuman?
Over your lifetime you replace every cell in your body with new cells. You’re essentially a different person when you're 20 compared to when you were born, but we still consider you to be the same person. I don’t see why making artificial replacements would be any different, though the method of how the brain was replaced would be a concern. I would imagine you would need to replace it in a continuous manner rather then cutting it out and placing a new one in.
This made me think of an old question I had when I first saw Star Trek. Do they die when they are teleported?
But this raises an interesting question: where do we draw the line between human and not human? With prosthetic and such becoming more and more common, and it is a real possibility that disabled/injured people could become more mechanical than biological, is there a point where they are no longer human?
A very interesting question. You could say that if the majority of one's body was made mechanical then you would cease to be human, but I think it should be more a matter of function. If we give someone a robotic body that moves on all four legs, eats coal, and shits diamonds, then that person is completely different from a human from a functional standpoint. If we give everything on the inside artificial replacements and the person still looks, acts, and functions exactly the same as a human, it wouldbea human for all intents and purposes. The only reasons to define the second person differently would be rather useless, and probably lead to a lot of nasty discrimination.
(Just note that I'm not involving a scientific or medical definition of what is human here, because I couldn't speak to that with any sort of authority. This is a purely cultural/philosophical musing.)
I think considering something human and providing it the same rights as one can be different. Putting a human brain into a monkey won't make it human. It could be argued that it should have the rights of a human. This assumes it keeps the human memories and understanding of our laws, culture, society.
Putting a human brain into a monkey won't make it human.
I disagree
I don't think it is proper to say it is human or monkey. I think it is something different and new. However, I think robotic replaces to a human does not change the classification.
I think what makes us who we are is our consciousness. It's like a stand alone *.exe file. No matter what windows box you put it in, its still that file.
Wait a tic. If windows is like the human body, then WINE is like a brain/machine interface.
I think what makes us who we are is our consciousness. It's like a stand alone *.exe file. No matter what windows box you put it in, its still that file.
Wait a tic. If windows is like the human body, then WINE is like a brain/machine interface.
You sound like Heidegger. "The essence of a tree is not itself a tree," or in other words, your "essence" is what makes you you and not merely a sum of your parts.
Yeah, I think. If someone could transfer my consciousness into a machine, I would still be human...maybe? I don't know. Too existential for me at this time.
It turns out the kid was high on flakka. And it's been scarily spreading throughout Florida for months.
A single dose smoked, swallowed or snorted can give a user a potent but fleeting rush — or turn them into a paranoid zombie with superhuman strength and off-the-charts vital signs.
Well, voodoo zombies, rather than being caused by some sort of pathogen or (in the modern sense of the term) magic, their zombie state is cause by mixtures of nuerotoxins and psychotropic drugs. So they eat flesh, not out of the traditional zombie need for transmission, but because they've been reduced to a rabid, confused, crazed state.
Well traditionally voodoo zombies were basically drugged with puffer fish toxin and a bunch of magic woo from what I've seen. More drugged slave than rabid husk. If they had access to scopolamine to throw in the mix they could probably make someone really like in an old voodoo zombie movie. They'd pretty much do whatever you say rather than just being doped up. It's scary shit.
Comments
But this raises an interesting question: where do we draw the line between human and not human? With prosthetics and such becoming more and more common, and it is a real possibility that disabled/injured people could become more mechanical than biological, is there a point where they are no longer human?
(Just note that I'm not involving a scientific or medical definition of what is human here, because I couldn't speak to that with any sort of authority. This is a purely cultural/philosophical musing.)
This made me think of an old question I had when I first saw Star Trek. Do they die when they are teleported?
Wait a tic. If windows is like the human body, then WINE is like a brain/machine interface.